this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
93 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

88390 readers
2963 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 8 points 37 minutes ago (2 children)

I've been to court, and it never even occurred to me that the lawyers are not placed under oath. But they're the ones that do most of the talking during a case. I wonder that the reasoning for not being under oath is.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 6 points 32 minutes ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago) (1 children)

They are advocating/representing, not testifying. A defense attorney does not make statements of fact, they call witnesses and experts for that. They introduce reasonable doubt.

They call witnesses and experts to present facts and other testomony which is why they are under oath.

[–] AltoCuddle@lemmy.world 3 points 28 minutes ago* (last edited 28 minutes ago) (1 children)

Fair enough, but I don’t like it. I guess I’ll settle for contempt of court.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 1 points 25 minutes ago

They are still able to be held accoubtable for breaking ethincs, and in my opinion they should be disbarred for presenting AI hallucinations and any other evidence they haven't spent any time verifying.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 2 points 13 minutes ago

What the lawyers say is not under oath unless they go to the witness stand and swear in. The main reason is that lawyers mainly are in the court to make opinionated arguments, not to give facts.

Lawyers do have a "duty of candor" to the "tribunal" at all times, however. This is because they have taken an oath (different from the witness oath) to become "officers of the court". This means they cannot knowingly misstate facts or law to the court.

But the maximum exposure on a duty of candor violation is court sanctions, like fines or adverse court outcomes, possibly contempt, and bar discipline, and so on. It's not the crime of perjury.